Jinsei, it's not a matter of choosing where to get your meat from since in many cases there is no choice. In schools for example. That's kinda what we were talking about.

If I had my way schools would have to get meat from ethical suppliers right now, but we never will be able to if we have to appease religious groups.

crescentmoon You asked and I answered.

If we have agreed that religious sensibilities trump everything else then we must have all meat killed the proper halal way. That means not stunning it at all. Which is clearly less humane.

Some Muslims have decided that stunning isn't a deal breaker and some here are suggesting ignoring those muslims who want it done as Allah told them. If you'd going to put religion first then I don't see how you can morally dismiss the requirements of the more devout Muslims.

In any case we have established that some religious people are forbidden to eat halal meat. So if we say that we must respect religion that puts us in an impossible position. You have to choose to ignore one religion or the other. Which one? Shall we have a vote now?

In addition to this as I said before an agreement that religion must decide means that we cannot look for even more humane ways. Next year - or in a thousand years - we may find a method that's really good, but we will not be allowed to use it because Islam doesn't like it.

the MAJORITY of muslims, not just in the UK, but in many countries in the Middle East, North Africa, South East Asia, consider stunning as compatible with halal.

to repeat, though iv said it over and over that if one's objection to halal meat is stunning then the majority of UK halal meat - 9 times out of 10 - is stunned.

"then I don't see how you can morally dismiss the requirements of the more devout Muslims."

not just here because its the UK, muslims eat stunned meat even in fundamentalist saudi arabia too (a big market for New Zealand meat where it is well known that it is stunned) and many other religious bodies have issued notices explaining the permissibility of stunning.

when i say permissibility that means, that it is not a requirement of halal slaughter but if stunning is involved then it the meat is still halal.

"If I had my way schools would have to get meat from ethical suppliers right now, but we never will be able to if we have to appease religious groups. "

what do you mean ethical suppliers? some here think 'oh halal cant be organic' but just as with the rest of the population organic halal meat is very expensive. but its there. i mentioned Abraham natural produce an organic halal farm in Somerset. there is another organic halal farm in Oxford that sells halal meat. both farms stun their animals and provide organic halal meat to UK muslims. but its very expensive - the same reason why normal organic meat is not sold in schools.

but backonly - whether organic or not those animals are all still slaughtered the same way. and thats what i keep going back to and asking.

the UK uses the sticking method not because of Kosher or halal religious requirements but that it is found to be the best way. halal method is close to sticking except with the prayer. and its not mechanised it involves a human being checking the status of each animal not just running a machine blade through a line of animals strung up and hoisted together.

as for Sikhs yes if they are forbidden to - and its not just halal meat but meat blessed by any other religion - then it is unjust to force them to eat halal. but the school of the OP are asking parents to decide, and the OP herself will write her own objections in as well as voting.

and they already use other methods - chickens are gassed, or stunned unconscious and then boiled alive. pigs are also gassed. do you think those new modern methods are better? to me even 'how sharp is the blade' is an issue let alone to talk of actual methods.

Forget the 'ethical suppliers'. That's a red herring really. Mostly about me not being entitled to an opinion because I don't use ethical suppliers anyway.

the MAJORITY of muslims, not just in the UK, but in many countries in the Middle East, North Africa, South East Asia, consider stunning as compatible with halal. and the rest don't matter?

You keep saying the 'majority' as though that means something. We're talking about appeasing those who want hallal who are not the majority either so why dismiss the muslims who consider stunned meat to be haram just because they are outnumbered?

It's no good trying to deny that they exist either. Crescent are you a muslim? if so is this like the Roman Catholics versus Protestants thing?

My point then is that if you say we must do what people's religion requires then we must kill animals without even stunning them first. While still awake.

I don't know the best way to kill them, but I doubt that cutting them while still conscious is it. So we're going to have to ignore the beliefs of some people aren't we. In fact we already.

I want an ongoing search for better methods and as we find them I want them used. This agreement would mean the method could never be changed.

as for Sikhs yes if they are forbidden to - and its not just halal meat but meat blessed by any other religion - then it is unjust to force them to eat halal. but the school of the OP are asking parents to decide, and the OP herself will write her own objections in as well as voting.

So if it is decided to go all hallal then any Sikh children can just bugger off back where they came from?

I agree with blu, very divisive way to handle it. I am veggie, ds is not. I would object to the only meat option being halal on animal welfare grounds- I don't see why one belief, religious, trumps equally firm beliefs against cruelly.